hrotha wrote:It remains to be seen how easy it was to detect. Everybody can put a motor in their bike. Avoiding detection (which is what makes it feasible in a professional context) is a different matter altogether.

it doesn't matter if it's technologically possible. motordoping is ethically so far out that nobody would even consider it. doping, yes, motordoping, nah.

Hey, you tell that to whoever argued that. I always questioned its feasibility, not pro riders' willingness to exploit something illegal. Closest thing to that I ever said was that it was likely to be seen as much worse than doping within the peloton.

I am curious if that year by Matti Breschel was legit or not, when he was at CSC, because he did have a fine year that year with Spartacus.

But, in MB's defense, when he first came into the peloton as a 22 or 21 yo, he had a great debut, I remember he was winning Dreidaagse Van Vlaanderen or Four Days of Dunkirk, one of those races, and Robbie Mcewen tangled up with him and he had a pretty bad collarbone break. So he did have alot of talent.

hrotha wrote:It remains to be seen how easy it was to detect. Everybody can put a motor in their bike. Avoiding detection (which is what makes it feasible in a professional context) is a different matter altogether.

it doesn't matter if it's technologically possible. motordoping is ethically so far out that nobody would even consider it. doping, yes, motordoping, nah.

Hey, you tell that to whoever argued that. I always questioned its feasibility, not pro riders' willingness to exploit something illegal. Closest thing to that I ever said was that it was likely to be seen as much worse than doping within the peloton.

and that in itself isn't a bad argument, to be fair.but the evidence of motorization has been so overwhelming (regardless of Femke van Driesschen) that it easily outweighs/ed any ethical counterargument.

As much as I've sadly enough accepted medical doping as part of the game to increase your OWN power ...

I ain't gonna accept any cheating with motors anytime. This is bike racing. Not motorbike racing.

I certainly hope the UCI's got the same view on it and fights just this one very hard!

I would rate Vaughters & co hypocrite enough to truly believe that mechanical doping at least ain't got no bad influence on the riders health and ain't that sleazy because of that. He's such a goof and ain't got no clue about true cycling passion after all!

Last edited by staubsauger on 30 Jan 2016 19:50, edited 1 time in total.

sniper wrote:and that in itself isn't a bad argument, to be fair.but the evidence of motorization has been so overwhelming (regardless of Femke van Driesschen) that it easily outweighs/ed any ethical counterargument.

hrotha wrote:It remains to be seen how easy it was to detect. Everybody can put a motor in their bike. Avoiding detection (which is what makes it feasible in a professional context) is a different matter altogether.

it doesn't matter if it's technologically possible. motordoping is ethically so far out that nobody would even consider it. doping, yes, motordoping, nah.

Hey, you tell that to whoever argued that. I always questioned its feasibility, not pro riders' willingness to exploit something illegal. Closest thing to that I ever said was that it was likely to be seen as much worse than doping within the peloton.

and that in itself isn't a bad argument, to be fair.but the evidence of motorization has been so overwhelming (regardless of Femke van Driesschen) that it easily outweighs/ed any ethical counterargument.

C'mon sniper. "Overwhelming evidence?" Until today the most it's been is "very suspicious."

sniper wrote:and that in itself isn't a bad argument, to be fair.but the evidence of motorization has been so overwhelming (regardless of Femke van Driesschen) that it easily outweighs/ed any ethical counterargument.

"Overwhelming evidence"? Lal.

MarkvW wrote:C'mon sniper. "Overwhelming evidence?" Until today the most it's been is "very suspicious."

If you have filmcrews filming how it's being done, installed, used in competition, and multiple unrelated sources including pro's telling they know it's been/being used, etc., you don't find that overwhelming?

hrotha wrote:It remains to be seen how easy it was to detect. Everybody can put a motor in their bike. Avoiding detection (which is what makes it feasible in a professional context) is a different matter altogether.

it doesn't matter if it's technologically possible. motordoping is ethically so far out that nobody would even consider it. doping, yes, motordoping, nah.

Hey, you tell that to whoever argued that. I always questioned its feasibility, not pro riders' willingness to exploit something illegal. Closest thing to that I ever said was that it was likely to be seen as much worse than doping within the peloton.

and that in itself isn't a bad argument, to be fair.but the evidence of motorization has been so overwhelming (regardless of Femke van Driesschen) that it easily outweighs/ed any ethical counterargument.

C'mon sniper. "Overwhelming evidence?" Until today the most it's been is "very suspicious."

sniper wrote:and that in itself isn't a bad argument, to be fair.but the evidence of motorization has been so overwhelming (regardless of Femke van Driesschen) that it easily outweighs/ed any ethical counterargument.

"Overwhelming evidence"? Lal.

MarkvW wrote:C'mon sniper. "Overwhelming evidence?" Until today the most it's been is "very suspicious."

If you have filmcrews filming how it's being done, installed, used in competition, and multiple unrelated sources including pro's telling they know it's been/being used, etc., you don't find that overwhelming?

Dude. There's companies out there that let you buy complete systems online... It's been not just feasible, but practical and affordable since 2010.